Printer Friendly Version (pdf, 59K)

Including Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessment:
Executive Summary

Validity of Inferences Made From Test Scores

Students with disabilities can and should demonstrate achievement even though some cannot do so in the regular large-scale assessment even after intensive, evidence-based interventions and appropriate, allowable assessment accommodations. For alternate assessments, the inferences about proficiency on state content standards must take into consideration the individual needs of students with disabilities. With both modified and alternate achievement standards, an inference is made that the breadth and/or depth of content have been reduced to make the assessment content accessible to a subgroup of students with disabilities. To assist states in implementing participation methods, the papers provide further definitions of the inferences to be made for the different types of achievement standards (see Table 4).

The regular assessment with accommodations and the alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards permit the same inferences as the regular assessment. These three methods are considered comparable because they represent changes in the types of supports or assessment formats but not changes to the breadth and/or depth of the assessment content. Alternate assessments based on different achievement standards do not permit the same inferences because they are not comparable to those assessments. Modified and alternate achievement standards do represent changes to the breadth and/or depth of assessment skills and knowledge.

Table 4

Making Explicit the Inference for Each of the Achievement Standards

Conclusion

Including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems can involve five testing methods. How students with disabilities participate is determined by the IEP team and must be driven by student need, not disability category or placement. Given this need, changes can be made in the types of support provided (prompts, scaffolds, or assistive technologies) and/or in the breadth and/or depth of the assessment to allow students with disabilities to participate in the statewide assessment system. The decision to make any changes, however, is very important because the test scores from every testing method are used to calculate AYP and this use warrants validation and the collection of evidence (both procedural and empirical). In the end, improving the quality of an assessment system that fully includes students with disabilities should be ongoing, guided by a periodic review of technical quality that considers proficiency as a function of a validity argument.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68,697-68,708 (Dec. 9, 2003) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400, H.R. 1350

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat.1425 (2002).

Technical Work Group (2005, August). Including students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs 2005 Project Directors’ Conference, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education (2004, April). Standards and assessment peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc.

The U.S. Department of Education is reviewing public comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding modified achievement standards. As this analysis is not completed, the content of this document may not necessarily reflect the final views or policies of the Department concerning modified achievement standards.

This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. EDO4CO0025/0002 with the American Institutes for Research.  Renee Bradley served as the contracting officer's representative.  No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this report or on Web sites referred to in this report is intended or should be inferred.